New law allows citizens to shoot police...

You know AT--you should visit an electronics store and pick up a little recorder. Save his words and actions up and go from there.

 

I totally would- but I moved bout 40 mins away from there to another county and no longer see him. Thank God. That shit was annoying.

 

Before drugs (mostly-rumors of "evil weed") in the 50s, we had 4 cops in my small hometown. My friends and i were told STERNLY many times--and I'll quote here because I remember it as compared to today= caught with a case or two of beer in a car-- "I've told you boys to take that beer out in the country to drink it, now go on." Ah--the old days.

 

I've heard there was much more corruption and slacking on the rules in the american police force in the 50's then now. Also less PC. Of course in general!

 

Yeah--I was taken home and dumped on my lawn drunk a few times by one of our finest. Probably was more corruption then. Different world.

 

where do you live?

pretty much all my encounters with police have been negative. even if i wasn't the one committing a crime.

i got beat up before, and someone else called the cops. when i described the guy who did it and his car license plate number, they said they couldn't do anything. when i told them they were fucking worthless in a very calm voice, they cuffed me, threatened to take me to jail and charged me with disorderly conduct. which basically got dropped.

someone has fired a shotgun at my house when i lived with my parents. we knew who it was. they didn't do anything - not enough evidence. but they were dicks about it too...
told my dad that if he were to shoot back and kill the fucker...they would have charged my dad with murder. how the fuck does that work?!


i know it's generalizing, and i know there are some good cops.


buck FUCK THE POLICE. i hate them.

why would anyone want to be a cop? seems like a job suited for people with control issues and tough-guy complexes.

the police have never helped me.

they are trained to be threatening and intimidating and make people voluntarily give up their rights. and if you don't...they get pissed and do whatever they can to fuck you over.

they seem to always be killing peoples' pets when it's not justified. murdering suspects because they misinterpret something. and then getting paid leave.


the police are supposed to protect and serve. they have never done either for me. so FUCK EM


worthless pigs.

 

^yep they won't help when u really need help...finding the guy who robbed you and arresting him would be too hard, so they'll just find a reason to arrest u instead.

Same difference to the pigs:devil:

 

I live pretty much on the border of Indiana, and the police there are infamous for not giving a fuck.

I work with a guy who lives there, and his house was raided a couple years ago. They busted down the door and ran in guns blazing. They shot shis dog, who was cowaring in the corner, shot out his expensive fish aquarium, and hit his wife with a flesh wound. They drug his kids out of bed and cuffed his whole family face down on the ground while they tore his entire house apart.

Turns out they did have a warrent.............FOR THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET.

It was getting way out of hand, and although if one were to act on this law you'd be risking certain death, I think it let's the Po Po know that they are not immune from the law. And if they go busting down the wrong door they may find themselves at the business end of a .45.

It may just be symbolic, as I've never heard of it till know, but I like what it symbolizes.

 

^^^great post, illustrating why this is a great law

 

The glorious nation of the Netherlands :bobby:

 

I agree with all of your post.

But just a note on this specific point.... I'll just say "yea"-- I don't know many people who became cops...okay, I can just think of one (that I know of) and this guy, in high school was such a pompous, redneck jerk. This guy punched me in the middle of science class for no reason but to get attention... a huge bully who was really a major loser.

Anyways, he went on to become a cop. All I could think when I learned this was "of course, perfect job for him".

 

The Law states by induction to the universal valuable judgments of human Right That, all of Man is innately racist to some extent. Police have as much the benevolent urge to extraordinarily charge another person for being rough and incorrect by the difference in the colour of their skin. That the red man is universally capable of reasoning inside himself like the white man, and the white man similarly. We all can see one another with the concepts of the appreciated "home" by the uneasonable difference that white people just are better becoming walled in and resending their judgment to work on their so-called property. The red man works on the world and basically HATES Nature because of the ignorance the white man has presented about It from biology with physics included.

But the constitution was a lot of bullshit from way back anyhow.

A socialist regime would do a lot better with a historicist attitude to this Law. Human rights must be more universal, I'd think, in a synthetic sense.


Makes more sense to have these War measures re-written as being such at least.

Sorry, I can only say this is not right.

 

In labor disputes, in legitimate civil protests, who is called to quell the constitutionally guaranteed "disturbances" by jailing, beating or in some instances murdering the participants? Hired goons or police. You do not disturb the powers that be by restricting commerce.

Who protects you and your family/friends from imminent harm? You.

Who demands respect, but seldom gives it and when given , is given grudgingly?

They may have to deal with the dregs of society, but they don't have to begin contact with you by assuming that you are included in that small percentage of assholes.

Last time I was stopped, it was because my trip permit (obtained legally, because tags were out of date--planned to license it in Oregon, where I was heading) was difficult to see on the sharply inclined back window of my Marlin. One standing to the right rear in a stance with his hand on his weapon and the other slowly inching his way up on the drivers side with his hand on his weapon. I could see them acting this way and I immediately stuck both hands out the window and up in the air. " why did you stick your hands in the air? That's what bad guys do," was the first thing he said. I replied " because I'd prefer not to get shot." Saw my permit in the back window, turned around and left without a word.

Don't get me wrong--if there were no police, total anarchy/chaos would ensue, so their presence is needed. There certainly are some who wish to protect and serve, but everyone knows that according to the rules of chance--you may get one that will fuck you over--just because.

 

Protect and serve or "Protect or serve"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rliPHHR0vlM"]Ford Edge "And Is Better" TV Commercial | Protect OR Serve - YouTube

 

I had a heated conversation about the second amendment with a buddy of mine recently. Specifically about whether the state ought to have a monopoly on lethal force - his argument was that the right to carry arms is in essence a "leftist" ideal, quoting some obscure 19th century German Socialist tract which called for, among other things, a people's army equal in force to the official army, so as to ensure the state army could never be used for nefarious, oppressive ends.

Now sure, one could argue, as my friend did, and as many Americans do, that firearms are an essentially democratizing phenomenon, and that an armed population with actual "stopping power" might help keep a government from abusing its powers. But this is a very puerile, not to say misguided way of understanding state power.

This might have worked in 19th century Germany, but this is simply not the case with modern America, or any nation with a professionally equipped military. If anything, it should be apparent how the ready availability of firearms actually legitimizes police brutality, and the use of unnecessary "preemptive" lethal force - because, hey, it's a war zone out there, right? It's just common sense for cops tasked with policing Afro-American ghettos to shoot first and ask questions later, none of that bleeding heart liberal civil rights nonsense, right? So it goes.

If one is serious about police brutality and the unlawful use of state force, then one should push to reform those institutions, making them more accountable. Boring, I know. Laws such as these are silly instances of symbolic legislation, designed to appease a paranoid right wing nut-job fringe, no more.

 

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.


Or if you have already been violated in the past.

Is my friend paranoid for supporting this law after the cops illegally busted in his house, killing his dog and spraying bullets all over his living room?

And ftr, he's a "bleeding heart liberal."

 

The answer to these questions is in my original post, but yes, this holds true also if in the past you have had altercations with the police. Or if you belong to a particular demographic known to be targeted by police for extra brutal treatment, such as blacks. I don't doubt a portion of cops are proto-fascist little fuckers who can get away with all kinds of routine abuse, because that's how the system's set up. But that doesn't change the fact that from a legal perspective, this legislation is just so much BS.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions-_b_1596846.html

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html

 

It doesn't link to anything which would validate this.

 

Thanks for the links.